20140422 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report 2017_20171201

Year 2 Monitoring Report
Final
Hudson Property
DMS Project ID #: 95361
DMS Contract #: 004638
USACE Action ID# SAW -2012-01394
Beaufort County, North Carolina
Submitted: December 2017
Submitted to/Prepared for:
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Prepared by:
ALBEMARLE RESTORATIONS, LLC
P.O. Box 176
Fairfield, NC 27826
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]

ecotone
� a �
ecological restoration
Albemarle Restorations, LLC
P.O. Box 176
Fairfield, NC 27826
[phone]
January 18, 2018
Ecotone, Inc.
www.ecotoneinc.com
Ph: 804.432.6805 1 Fax: [phone]
800 East High Street, Suite 200 Charlottesville, VA 22902
Jeff Schaffer
Eastern Supervisor/Project Manager
State of North Carolina Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
(919) 707 - 8976
Re: Draft Year 2 Monitoring Report for Hudson Property Stream Restoration Project (95361)
Tar -Pamlico River Basin; CU 03020105
Beaufort County, NC
Contract No. 004638
Dear Mr. Schaffer:
This letter is in response to your comments concerning the review of the Draft Monitoring Year 2 Report
and digital submittals. To aid in clarity, your comments are italicized below and followed by a response.
The digital data and drawings have been reviewed and determined to meet DMS requirements.
However, DMS is calling to your attention that while Albemarle did provide reach breakdowns for
each reach, in future submittals, please provide the reach lengths and mitigation approaches as
required by contract and stated in DMS's Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance for
Electronic Drawings Submitted to EEP version 1.o (03127/o8).
Future submissions will include reach lengths and mitigation approaches as specified by DMS.
2. Section 9.o: The report references the presence of bankfull events during monitoring year 2.
Please state whether this is the second year that bankfull events have occurred on the site that
would meet the bankfull standard for success.
Bankfull events occurred during Year 1 and Year 2 monitoring. The site is meeting the bankfull
standard for success. A note has been added to Section 9.0 to clarify this point.

Ecotone, Inc.
to
��www.ecotoneinc.com
ec
Ph: 804.432.6805 1 Fax: [phone]
o
ecological restoration
800 East High Street, Suite 200 Charlottesville, VA 22902
3. Appendix B, CCPV: On the Reach 1 sheet, vegetation plot 4 shows as meeting success while
the data says otherwise. Please correct.
Vegetation plot 4 in Appendix B, CCPV Reach 1 sheet has been corrected.
4. Appendix C, Table 7: The "PnoLS" column in Table 7 is for providing the number of planted stems
in each vegetation plot, not including live stakes. In looking at this report, is see that Albemarle
is including red maple, privet, sweetgum, wax myrtle and loblolly pine which were not listed as
planted stems in the Baseline Report. Please review this table and ensure that any volunteer
species and/or invasive species are included in the T (total) column only. This could show that
more plots that number 4 are not meeting success.
Appendix C, Table 7 has been corrected. Volunteer species and/or invasive species are now
represented in the T (total) column only. Stems per acre Only plot number continue to meet
requirements except for plot number 4.
5. Appendix D, Table 11 (all): DMS realizes that there are various methods used to calculate Bank
Height Ratio from year to year. One of these is to hold the bankfull depth static (denominator)
while allowing the Low Top of Bank max depth (numerator) to vary. Another method that has
been proposed and is being evaluated is to hold the As -built cross-sectional area static within each
year's new cross-section and allow that to determine the max bankfull depth for each year.
However, if there are large changes in the W/D ratio either method can make for somewhat
distorted BHR values depending upon the direction and magnitude of the change in the W/D ratio.
Please update the calculations to reflect changes observed in the overlays and explain in detail as
footnote with the tables that describes the method bywhich Albemarle is calculating Bank Height
Ratio and Entrenchment Ratio. In addition, please provide context to any observed changes in
these calculated ratios in the report narrative. Albemarle must be prepared to defend the method
used for credit release and justify through context whether or not any changes observed in a cross
section represent an issue.
After consideration of the protocols and the project, it was decided to hold the As -built cross-
sectional area static within each year's new cross-section and allow that to determine the max
bankfull depth for each year. The geomorphology monitoring data has been updated to reflect
this change for Years 1 and 2. Changing the fixed baseline to the cross-sectional area improved
our ability to interpret changes from Year 1 to Year 2 and did not reveal any Bankfull Bank Height
Ratios of concern. Please see updates to cross sections as well as to Appendix D, Table ii.

Table of Contents
1.0 Project Summary....................................................................................1
2.0 Project Goals and Objectives.................................................................1
3.0 Project Success Criteria.........................................................................1
3.1 Stream Restoration Performance Standards...........................................1
3.2 Stream Channel Restoration Stability Performance Standards..............2
3.3 Planted Vegetation Performance Standards...........................................2
4.0 Site Conditions and Description............................................................2
5.0 Mitigation Components.........................................................................2
6.0 Design Approach...................................................................................3
7.0 Construction and Planting Timeline......................................................3
8.0 Plan Deviations......................................................................................3
9.0 Project Performance..............................................................................3
10.0 Methods and References......................................................................3
Figure1 — Vicinity Map...............................................................................4
Appendix A — Background Tables...............................................................5
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits...............................6
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History......................................7
Table 3. Project Contacts..........................................................................7
Table 4. Project Information and Attributes.............................................8
Appendix B — CCPV and Photos.................................................................9
Current Condition Plan View..................................................................10
Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment (Reach 1-4)16
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table..................................20
SitePhotos..............................................................................................21
Appendix C — Vegetation Plot Data...........................................................25
Table 7: Vegetation Plot Counts and Densities......................................26
Appendix D — Stream Measurement and Geomorphology Data ...............27
Cross Sections with Annual Overlays (XS 1-11)
Table 8: Bank Pin Data.........................................................................39
Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Reach 1-4) ......................40
Table 11a. Monitoring Data — Dimensional Morphology Summary ....44
Table l lb. Monitoring Data — Stream Reach Data Summary (Reach
1-4)
....................................................................................................................45
Appendix E — Hydrologic Data..................................................................49
Table 9: Verification of Bankfull Events..............................................50
Table 12: Verification of Baseflow.......................................................50
Figure 2: Monthly Rainfall Data with Percentiles.................................51
Figures 3-12: Stream Surface Water Hydrology (Well 1-10) ...............52

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
The mitigation area is 13.49 acres located within a larger 106 -acre property owned by Charles
Hudson. It is located in Beaufort County, NC and the Tar -Pamlico River Basin. Mitigation
components include five stream reaches totalling 2,891 linear feet contained within a
Conservation Easement. Construction was completed in 2015 and planting completed in 2016.
The first of seven monitoring years was initiated in 2016. Year 2 monitoring was completed in
November 2017.
2.0 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The project goals of the Hudson property per the approved mitigation plan are as follows:
• Improve and sustain hydrologic connectivity/interaction and storm flow/flood
attenuation.
• Reduce nutrient and sediment stressors to the reach and receiving watershed.
• Provide uplift in water quality functions.
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitats (complexity, quality).
• Improve and maintain riparian buffer habitat.
The project goals will be addressed through the following project objectives:
• Implement a sustainable, reference -based, rehabilitation of the reach dimension, pattern,
and profile to provide needed capacity and competency.
• Support the removal of barriers to anadromous fish movement and to help improve
nursery and spawning habitats.
• Strategically install stream structures and plantings designed to maintain vertical and
lateral stability and improve habitat diversity/complexity.
• Provide a sustainable and functional bankfull floodplain feature.
• Enhance and maintain hydrologic connection between stream and adjacent
floodplain/riparian corridors.
• Utilize the additional width of the swamp runs to provide natural filters for sediment and
nutrients and diffuse flow from upstream runoff.
• Install, augment, and maintain appropriate riparian buffer with sufficient density and
robustness to support native forest succession.
• Water quality enhancement through riparian forest planting and woody material
installation, and increased floodplain interaction/overbank flooding.
• Restore the existing ditched streams to single and multi -thread headwater systems with
forested riparian buffers.
• Provide ecologically sound construction techniques that will require minimal grading and
disturbance.
3.0 PROJECT SUCCESS CRITERIA
3.1 Stream Restoration Performance Standards
Single Thread Channels (Reaches 1 - 4) and Swamp Run (Reach 5)
Groundwater monitoring wells are installed in and near the thalweg of all five reaches.
The wells are equipped with continuous—reading gauges capable of documenting
sustained flow. Per the approved Mitigation Plan, each reach must exhibit water flow for
at least 30 consecutive days during years with normal rainfall (demonstrating at least
intermittent stream status). All restored channels shall receive sufficient flow through the
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
1

monitoring period to maintain an Ordinary High -Water Mark (OHWM). Field indicators
of flow events include a natural line impressed on the bank; shelving; changes in soil
characteristics; destruction of terrestrial vegetation; presence of litter and debris;
wracking; vegetation matted down, bent or absent; sediment sorting; leaf litter disturbed
or washed away; scour; deposition; bed and bank formation; water staining; or change in
plant community. In addition, two overbank flows shall be documented for each reach
during the monitoring period using continuously monitored pressure transducers and crest
gauges. All collected data and field indicators of water flow shall be documented in each
monitoring report. Seven flow monitoring stations are located on Reaches 1 — 4, three are
located in Reach 5.
3.2 Stream Channel Restoration Stability Performance Standards
Headwater System (Reach 5)
All stream areas shall remain stable with no areas of excessive erosion such as evidence of
bank sloughing or actively eroding banks due to the exceedance in critical bank height and
lack of deep rooted stream bank vegetation.
Single Thread Channels (Reaches 1 - 4)
1. Bank Height Ratio (BHR) shall not exceed 1.2 within restored reaches of the stream
channel.
2. Entrenchment Ratio (ER) shall be no less than 2.2 within restored reaches of the stream
channel.
3. The stream project shall remain stable and all other performance standards shall be met
through two separate bankfull events, occurring in separate years, during the 7 -year post
construction monitoring period.
4. Three bank pin arrays and 11 cross sections are located on Reaches 1 - 4
3.3 Planted Vegetation Performance Standards
1. At least 320 three-year-old planted stems/acre must be present after year three. At year
five, density must be no less than 260 five-year-old planted stems/acre. At year 7, density
must be no less than 210 seven-year-old planted stems/acre.
2. If this performance standard is met by year 5 and stem density is trending toward success
(i.e., no less than 260 five-year-old stems/acre) monitoring of vegetation on the site may
be terminated provided written approval is provided by the USACE in consultation with
the North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT).
3. Thirteen vegetation plot samples are located within the project area.
4.0 SITE CONDITIONS AND DESCRIPTION
The Hudson property is 13.49 acres located in Beaufort County, NC and the Tar -Pamlico River
Basin. The majority of the site is used for crop production, primarily corn, soybeans and wheat.
As a result of the lowering of local water tables and in some cases the complete elimination of
ground and surface water interaction, the degradation of water quality and downstream
anadromous fish spawning and nursery habitat has occurred. Hydric soils are present on site,
meaning that the pre-existing site conditions were appropriate for raising the water table and re-
establishing normal base flow conditions (See Figure 1 -Vicinity Map).
5.0 MITIGATION COMPONENTS
Mitigation components are limited to five reaches: Reach 1: 833 If; Reach 2: 5321f; Reach 3: 445
If; Reach 4: 437 If; Reach 5: 6441f, for a total restored stream footage of 2,8911inear feet (Table
1).
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
2

6.0 DESIGN APPROACH
A natural design approach was used to restore the natural sinuosity and flow of the headwater
streams which existed prior to channelization. Grading was done to decrease sediment load and
erosion rate while allowing for floodplain connectivity and storage for overland flow. Banks were
graded down to distribute flow velocity and the banks and riparian buffers were planted to
stabilize the channel and create habitat. A combination of Priority 1 and Priority II restoration
types were used. Where the proposed channels tie into the existing, non -restored channels,
Priority 11 restoration was used.
7.0 CONSTRUCTION AND PLANTING TIMELINE
Construction commenced in December 2014 with the installation of recommended erosion
control practices and was completed in May 2015. Planting was officially concluded in early
January 2016. (Table 2 — Project History Table)
8.0 PLAN DEVIATIONS
There were no significant deviations between construction plans and the As -built conditions.
9.0 PROJECT PERFORMANCE
The Hudson stream restoration project is currently meeting functional goals and objectives.
Annual monitoring took place in November and revealed the presence of bankfull events,
floodplain connectivity, and lateral and vertical stability. In -stream structures were observed to be
functioning as intended with minimal scouring of the channel's banks or bed. Bankfull events
occurred during Year 1 and Year 2 monitoring. The site is meeting the bankfull standard for
success. The entire length of the project is currently exhibiting fully vegetated banks with both
herbaceous and woody plants. Overall, woody plantings within the riparian buffer are meeting
project goals with some dieback of planted stems and introduction of other woody vegetation in 8
out of 13 vegetation monitoring plots. Year 1 Monitoring identified some areas where woody
survivability was low; these areas will be spot planted in December 2017. After planting, stem
counts will be verified within plots and a report addendum submitted. Stream gauges indicated
base flow and bankfull events at 10 out of 10 locations. Bank pins could not be located due to
dense vegetative growth. Aggradation was noted on Reaches 2 and 3, however both reaches
remain stable. Stream cross sections are meeting objectives in 11 out of 11 locations. A field
meeting with NC Division of Mitigation Services and the USACE in June 2017, identified
corrective measures necessary on Reach 5 to raise the stream invert to create a wider swamp run.
Regrading was completed in October 2017. No additional corrective measures are necessary and
monitoring will continue as scheduled.
10.0 METHODS AND REFERENCES
Monitoring methodology did not differ from the approved Mitigation Plan. Cross-section
dimensions were collected using standard survey methods. Vegetation assessment was done
according to the Level 2 protocol specified by the Carolina Vegetation Survey. Hydrology
monitoring wells were installed per ERDC TN -WRAP -00-02 "Installing Monitoring
Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands" dated 2000. Groundwater levels were recorded using the U20-
001-01 water level data loggers manufactured by Onset Computer. The loggers were installed in
the wells per the manufacturer's instructions.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
3

Drive south on US 17, 4.6
miles from its intersection
with NC 33. Turn left on
Possum Track Road.
Entrance to project is 1.1
miles on left.
To Chocowinity
IN
r l $ 1W
h -
S
�.aYaan 49
AL
t
Y
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Hudson Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project #95361
Beaufort County, NC
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
4

APPENDIX A: PROJECT BACKGROUND TABLES
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts
Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
5

Table 1: Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Hudson Property, Beaufort County
EEP Project Number: 95361
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian wetland
Non -riparian
wetland
Buffer Nitrogen Phosphorous
Nutrient Nutrient
Offset Offset
Type R
IRE
R
RE
R
RE
Totals 2,891
Project Components
Project
Component
or Reach ID
Stationing/Location
Existing
Footage/Acreage
Approach
(PI, PH etc.)
Restoration
or
Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration
Footage or
Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
Reach 1
766 LF
PI
833 LF
1:1
Reach 2
516 LF
PI/PII
532 LF
1:1
Reach 3
611 LF
PI/PII
445 LF
1:1
Reach 4
503 LF
PI/PII
437 LF
1:1
Reach 5
689 LF
PI
644 LF
1:1
Total
3,085 LF
2,891 LF
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream
(linearfeet)
Riparian Wetland
(acres)
Non -riparian
Wetland (acres)
Buffer
(square feet)
Upland
(acres)
Riverine
Non-
riverine
Restoration
2,891 LF
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation
BMP Elements
Element Location Purpose/Function Notes
FB Adjacent to stream Buffer 100 feet on either side of stream centerline
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361

Table 2: Project Activity and Reporting History
Hudson Property- EEP Project Number 95361
Hudson Property- EEP Project Number: 95361
Primary Project Design POC
Activity, Deliverable, or Milestone
Data Collection Complete
Actual Completion or Delivery
Project Institution
N/A
June 2012
Mitigation Plan
July 2014
Oct 2014
Permits Issued
March 2013
May 2014
Final Design Construction
March 2013
May 2014
Construction
N/A
May 2015
Containerized, Bare Root, and B&B Planting
N/A
January 2016
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0 - Baseline)
January 2016
August 2016
Year 1 Monitoring
September 2016
Final: January 2017
Year 2 Monitoring
November 2017
December 2017
Year 3 Monitoring
Year 4 Monitoring
Year 5 Monitoring
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 7 Monitoring
Table 3: Project Contacts
Hudson Property- EEP Project Number: 95361
Primary Project Design POC
Ecotone, Inc.
Scott McGill [phone]
P.O. Box 5, Jarrettsville, MD 21084
Construction Contractor POC
Riverside Excavation, Inc.
Car Baynor [phone]
Survey Contractor POC
True Line Surveying
Curk Lane [phone]
Planting and Seeding Contractor
Carolina Silvics, Inc.
POC
Mary Margaret McKinney [phone]
908 Indian Trail Road, Edenton, NC 27932
Seed Mix Sources
Ernst Conservation Seeds, LLP, Meadville, PA
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Carolina Silvics, Inc.
Monitoring Performers
Ecotone, Inc.
Stream and Vegetation POC
Scott McGill [phone]
P.O. Box 5, Jarrettsville, MD 21084
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361

Table 4: Project information
Hudson Property- EEP Project Number: 95361
Project name
HUDSON PROPERTY
County
BEAUFORT
Project Area (ac)
13.4 AC
Project Coordinates (Lat and Long)
77° 06" 13.62' W / 35° 26" 53.20' N
4.1 Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic province
INNER COASTAL PLAIN
River basin
AR-PAMLICO RIVER BASIN
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-
digit
03020104
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
03020104010010
DWQSub-basin
CHOCOWINITY CREEK— HORSE BRANCH
Project Drainage Area (acres)
190.86
Project Drainage Area Percentage of
Impervious Area
1.2 % (2.24 acres)
CGIA Land Use Classification
2.01.01.07 Annual Row Crop Rotation
4.2 Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
Length of reach (linear feet)
766
516 611
503
689
Valley classification
Vill
VIII Vill
VIII
Vill
Drainage area (acres)
40.51
74.63
35.21
150.35
190.86
NCDWR stream identification score
20.75
20.75
20.75
20.75
28
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C;NSW
C;NSW
C;NSW
C;NSW
C;NSW
Morphological Description (stream type)
G5 -G6
G5 -G6
G5 -G6
G5 -G6
G5 -G6
Evolutionary trend
Early (CEM)
Early (CEM)
Early (CEM)
Early (CEM)
Early (CEM)
Underlying mapped soils
GoA & CrB
CrB & Ly
CrB & Ly
CrB
CrB & Me
Drainage class
Mw
MW & SP
MW & SP
MW
MW & P
Soil Hydric status
Non -Hydric
Non -Hydric
Non -Hydric
Non -Hydric
Hydric
Slope (ft/ft)
0.009
0.006
0.008
0.004
0.003
FEMA classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
AE/X
Native vegetation community
Pasture/Crop
Pasture/Crop
Pasture/Crop
Pasture/Crop
Pasture/Crop
Percent composition of exotic invasive
vegetation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4.3 Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting
Documents
Waters of the United States — Section 404
YES
YES
Documents
Waters of the United States — Section 401
YES
YES
—Supporting
SAW -2012-01394
Endangered Species Act
NO
YES
NA
Historic Preservation Act
NO
YES
NA
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
NO
YES
NA
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
NO
YES
NA
Essential Fisheries Habitat
NO
YES
NA
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361

APPENDIX B: VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
Current Condition Plan View
Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment (Reach 1-4)
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Site Photos
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
9

Alhenaarle Restorations, LLCHudson Stream Restoration PrOJ'VCt oo FIOwStation eeeeeu Cross sections =Woody RVIes Veg Plot Condition
Current Condition Plan view Bank Pin Array
Access Road '»'> Log Drops Criteria Met
mesa Stream CenterlineQ CrI18FIl UrIMet
wP,rA�krxPRn�Rir„n --• 7a Stream Gauges
vnw� x -x fit— Project # 95361 p of bank Easement Boundary gY drolo Met In -stream Structure Condition
fYi1rQ Hnbiye November 2, 2017 -Stable

�s
Hudson Stream Restoration Project - "P"B"& MEII Crass Section
LoglkoPs vegRCA ca,3tion
AlbermarleRestoralions, LLCWon*Fzifiles A=�Paad cfk la Met
Cuirent Condition Plan View MIONE Stream Centerline Streani Gauges _
Fiow 5taaon 0 iriR-via Unmet
5§�ca�s�r�on Project 4#95361 Easement Boundary • HydMICgyNL-t
November 2, 2017 12' &—k Pin Wray IrFstreS13bl2nn a cWre CorodEdon
Hudson Stream Restoration Project - Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
11

Hudson Stream Restoration Project 0 Flow Station Bank Pin Array ",%.. Log Drops Vag Plot Condition
Alhemarle Restorations, LLC
View
Current Condition Plan Y Easement Top or � EaSEent Boundary
IkeFf—dRP.enu�rr � — Woody RilFles innn Cross SecHydrology M tions `re loCriteria Met
gy M
Project # 95361 cr tE a un ret
.Vlrnnm xo:rrrnirn„ In -cream Structure Condition
vri m u�a„or NDVCnihet 2, 2017 Stream CBnterhne Access Road — stable

Albemarle Restorations, LLC Current
Stream Restoration Project 0 Flow Station Bank Pin Array '�� Log Drops Veg Plot Condition
_ Criteria Met
Current Condition Plan View .... Top or Bank � Easement Boundary
IkeFf—dRP.enu�ir� u■... Crosssectlons Stream Gauges
Project # 95361 -- Woody Renes Hydrology Met QItE l2 un ret
.Vlrnnm xo:rrrnirn„ In -cream Structure Condition
vri m Ifnhnnl November 2, 201 Stream CBnterhne Ap mss Rued _ Stable

t'
r ,
tt
t -
t �J
tt
tt
tt
tt
ti
tt
�t 2
t
Reach 4 72_4
r7�rwr
0 20 4
tt
i
i tt
t `
y
t
tt o►t
i
r
tt
o o a oa o 0 0 0
0 6IfrC o .
Albemarle Restorations, LLC Hudson Stream Restoration Project
Current Condition Plan View
Wetland Restorrdaon
s ��mResto �tmn Project # 95361
waafe xaaaat November 2, 2017
Flow Station
Bank Pin Array
"i Log Drops
Vag Plot Condition
Cntena Met
---- Top of Bank
� Easement Boundary
.ream Gauges
Woody Riffles
�11"N Cross Sections
[i Hydrology Met
0 CntenaUnmet
I u Stream Centerline
Access Road
In -stream Structure Condition
- Stable

--- Top of Bank II Cross Sections
Alhemarle Restorations, LLC Hudson Stream Restorative Project - Wouuody Riffles Access Road »> Log Drops Veg Plot Condi
_ Giteria Met
Current Condition Plan View 9 a Stream Centerline Sirearn Gauges
iYvNnnd Rv.ehvnlrnn Flow Station QliEfla Unrret
K,x,�,,,,,�„ Project # 95361 Easement Boundary Hydrology Mei
In-Oream Structure Condition
W I ffor lfnbnnl
NpVCxl117ei 2, 2017 � Bank Pin Array Stable

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 1
Assessed Length 766
*Stream's narrow width, layout, and heaviIyvegetated banks make this attribute not applicable.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
16
Number
Footage
Adjusted %
Number
with
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub -Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly
deflect flow laterally(notto include point bars)
0
0
o
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
13
13
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
5
5
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
5
5
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
NA`
NA"
NA'
Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
F
NA`
NA"
NA'
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting
2. Undercut
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
appear sustainable and are provding habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1 Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
8
8
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across
the sill.
8
8
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
8
8
100%
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
3. Bank Protection
exceed 151%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring
$
8
100%
guidance document)
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean
4. Habitat
Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
8
8
100%
bas a -flow.
*Stream's narrow width, layout, and heaviIyvegetated banks make this attribute not applicable.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
16

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 2
Assessed Length 516
Stream's narrow width, layout, and heavilyvegetated banks make this attribute not applicable.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
17
Number
Footage
Adjusted %
Number
with
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub -Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Agaradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly
deflectflow laterally(notto include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
9
9
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth :Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
3
3
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
3
3
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
NA`
NA'
NA'
F2Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
NA`
NA'
NA'
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simplyfrom poor growth
and/or scour and erosion
0
0
100/0 o
0
0
100/o 0
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting
2. Undercut
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
appear sustainable and are provding habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
0
0
NA
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across
the sill.
0
0
NA
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
0
0
NA
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
3. Bank Protection
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring
0
0
NA
guidance document)
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean
4. Habitat
Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
0
0
NA
base -flow.
Stream's narrow width, layout, and heavilyvegetated banks make this attribute not applicable.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
17

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 3
Assessed Length 611
Stream's narrow width, layout, and heavilyvegetated banks make this attribute not applicable.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
18
Number
Footage
Adjusted %
Number
with
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub -Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Agaradation -Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly
deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
o
100/o
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
7
7
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
3
3
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
3
3
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
NA'
NA'
NA'
halweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
F
NA'
NA`
NA'
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting s im ply from poor growth
and/or scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting
2. Undercut
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
appear sustainable and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
0
0
NA
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across
the sill.
0
0
NA
2a. Piping
Structures lacking anysubstantial flow underneath sills or arms.
0
0
NA
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
3. Bank Protection
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring
0
0
NA
guidance document)
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean
4. Habitat
Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
0
0
NA
base -flow.
Stream's narrow width, layout, and heavilyvegetated banks make this attribute not applicable.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
18

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 4
Assessed Length 503
Stream's narrow width, layout, and heaviIyvegetated banks make this attribute not applicable.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
19
Number
Footage
Adjusted %
Number
with
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub -Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation -Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly
deflectflow laterally(notto include point bars)
0
0
o
100/o
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
$
8
NA
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth :Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
3
3
NA
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
3
3
NA
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
NA"
NA`
NA
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
NA"
NA"
NA
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simplyfrom poor growth
and/or scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting
2. Undercut
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
appear sustainable and are provding habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
3
3
NA
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across
the sill.
3
3
NA
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
3
3
NA
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
3. Bank Protection
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring
3
3
NA
guidance document)
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean
4. Habitat
Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
3
3
NA
bas a -flow.
Stream's narrow width, layout, and heaviIyvegetated banks make this attribute not applicable.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
19

Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Planted Acreage 12.42
Easement Acreage 13.5
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
%of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale
Pattern
Pattern
and Color
0
0
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1 acres
and Color
0
0
0.0%
Pattern
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY 3, 4 or 5 stem count criteria
1 0.1 acres
and Color
p
0
0.0%
Total:
0
0
0.0%
Pattern
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year
0.25 acres
and Color
0
0
0.0%
Cumulative Total: 0 0 0.0%
Easement Acreage 13.5
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
%of Planted
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too smal I to render as polygons at map scale
1000 sf
Pattern
and Color
0
0
0.0%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale
none
Pattern
and Color
0
0
0.05]/.
No areas of concern are noted .
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
20

Photo 1: Highly vegetated restoration area along Reach 2 - View North
Photo 2: View Upstream on Reach 3
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
21

Photo 3: View of Reach 5 upstream
Photo 4: View of vegetation plot
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
22

APPENDIX C: VEGETATION PLOT DATA
Table 7: Vegetation Plot Counts and Densities
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
23

Table 7: Vegetation Plot Counts and Densities
EEP Project Code 0004638. Project Name: Hudson
Current Plot Data (MY2 20171
Scientific Name
Common Name
0004638-01-0001
Species Type PnoLS P -all T
0004638-01-0002
PnoLS P -all T
0004638-01-0003
PnoLS P -all T
0004638-01-0004
PnoLS P -all T
0004638-01-0005
Pnol-S P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
Ligustrum vulgare
European privet
Ligustrum vulgare
European privet
Exotic
Liquidambarstyraciflua
sweetgum
Tree 1
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
1
Liriodendrontulipifera
1
Tree
1
2
Liriodendrontulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1 1
2
shrub
2 2
2
Morella cerifera
wax myrtle
shrub
Tree 61
1 1
1
1
1
7
2
Platanus occidentalis
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
5
5
2
2
1 1
2
5
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
3 31
31
4 411
4
4 4
41
1 1
21 2 2
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
1 1
5
3 3
3
1
1 1 1
Quercus bicolor
swamp white oak
Tree
4 4
4
2 2
2
4
Quercus phellos
1 1 1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
2
2 21
2 4
Stem count 8 8 16 13 13 13 12 12 12 9 91 16 12 12 18
size (ares) 1 1 1 1 1
size (ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Species count 2 2 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 41 5 31 3 5
Stems per ACRE 323.71 323.71 647.51526.11 526.11 526.11485.61 485.61 485.61364.21 364.21 647.5 48.5.6 485.6 728.4
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
2 22
Quercus phellos
1willow oak
Tree
2 2
2
1 1
3
2 2
2
5 5 5
Stem count 11 11 22 10 10 13 9 9 10
size (ares) 1 1 1
size (ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.02
Species count 5 5 7 4 4 5 4 4 4
Stems per ACRE 445.21 445.21 890.31404.71 404.71 526.11364.21 364.21 404.71
0 0 6 10 101 13
1 1
0.02 0.02
0 0 2 4 4 6
01 01 242.8 404.71404.71 526.1
EEP Project Code 0004638. Project Name: Hudson
Current Plot Data (MY2 2017)
Scientific Name
Common Name
0004638-01-0006
Species Type PnoLS P -all T
0004638-01-0007
Pnol-S P -all T
0004638-01-0008
Pnol-S P -all T
0004638-01-0009
PnoLS P -all T
0004638-01-0010
PnoLS P -all T
Acerrubrum
red maple
Tree
Ligustrum vulgare
European privet
Exotic
Liquidambarstyraciflua
sweetgum
Tree 1
Liriodendrontulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
9 9 9
Morella cerifera
wax myrtle
shrub
Pinustaeda
loblollypine
Tree 61
1 1
1
1
1
7
2
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore Tree 2 2 2
6 6 6
5 5
5
2 2
2
2
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
Quercus bicolor
swamp white oak
Tree
4 4 4
1 1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak Tree
1 1
1
1 1 1
Quercus nigra
iwater oak
Tree
4 4
4
4 41
4
Quercus phellos
1willowoalk
Tree 6 6 7
3 3 3
2 2
2
2 21
2 4
Stem count 8 8 16 13 13 13 12 12 12 9 91 16 12 12 18
size (ares) 1 1 1 1 1
size (ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Species count 2 2 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 41 5 31 3 5
Stems per ACRE 323.71 323.71 647.51526.11 526.11 526.11485.61 485.61 485.61364.21 364.21 647.5 48.5.6 485.6 728.4
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
24

Table 7: Vegetation Plot Counts and Densities (Continued)
EEP Project Code 0004638. Project Name: Hudson
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
25
Current Plot Data (MY2 2017)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
0004638-01-0011
Species Type PnoLS F--allT
0004638-01-0012
PnoLS P -all T
0004638-01-0013
PnoLS P -all T
MY2(2017)
PnoLS P -all T
MY3(2016)
PnoLS P -all T
MYO(2016)
PnoLS P -all T
Acerrubrum
red maple
Tree
9
9
Ligustrum vulgare
European privet
Exotic
1
1
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
6
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
2 2
2
1 1
3
15
15
18
12 12
12
31
31
31
Morella cerifera
wax myrtle
shrub
2
2
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
10
1 1
15
1
11
11
53
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
10 10
12
1 1
1
4 4
4
43
43
47
44 44
47
54
54
S4
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
1
1 1
1
5 5
5
10
10
14
12 12
12
16
16
16
Quercus bicolor
swamp white oak
Tree
2 2
2
3 3
3
17
17
17
19 19
19
19
19
19
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1 1
2
3 3
3
5 5
5
11
11
12
8 8
8
13
13
13
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
3 3
4
1 1
1
14
14
15
11 11
11
18
18
18
Quercus phellos
1willow oak
ITree
25
25
30
24 24
25
33
33
33
Stem count 18 181
size (ares) 1
size (ACRES ► 0.02
Species count 5 5
Stems per ACRE 728.41 728.4
34 10 10
1
0.02
7 6 6
1376 404.71 404.71
36 14 14
1
0.02
8 3 3
1457 566.61 566.61
15 136 136 224 130 130 134 184 184 184
13 13 13
0.32 0.32 0.32
4 8 8 12 7 7 7 71 7 7
607 423.41 423.4 697.3 404.7 404.7 417.1 572.81 572.8 572.8
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
25

APPENDIX D: STREAM MEASUREMENT AND
GEOMORPHOLOGY DATA
Cross Sections with Annual Overlays (XS 1-11)
Table 8: Bank Pin Data
Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Reach 1-4)
Table 11 a. Monitoring Data — Dimensional Morphology Summary
Table l lb. Monitoring Data — Stream Reach Data Summary (Reach 1-4)
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
26

STATION
ELEVATION
0+00
42.91
0+25
40.40
0+40
38.60
0+46.5
38.04
0+48
37.85
0+50
37.54
0+52
38.05
0+54
38.16
0+60
38.85
0+75
40.15
1+00
41.91
46
44
42
rn
v 40
o'
38
36
34
Monitoring XS 1 (Pool) - REACH 3 STA 0+09
0 0 0 -k 0 06 10 20 30 40 0 60
LEGEND
AS -BUILT GRADE
YEAR 1 MONITORING GRADE
YEAR 2 MONITORING GRADE
BANKFULL ELEVATION
FLOODPRONE ELEVATION
Note:
Channel has aggraded as anticipated and remains stable.
Distance From Stream Centerline
Scale: 1" = 20'
STREAM TYPE C5/6 Vertical Exaggeration:5x
SUMMARY DATA (FT)
BANKFULL ELEVATION:
38.33
BANKFULL CROSS SECTIONAL AREA:
4.00
BANKFULL WIDTH:
12.37
FLOOD PRONE AREA ELEVATION:
39.12
FLOOD PRONE WIDTH:
27.4
MAX DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.79
MEAN DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.32
W/D RATIO:
NA
ENTRENCHMENT RATIO:
NA
BANK HEIGHT RATIO:
1
" 'ecotone HUDSON STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
ecological restoration YEAR 2 MONITORING XS 1
PROJECT # 95361
2120 High Point Road • Forest Hill, Maryland 21050 BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
[phone] -Fax [phone]-www.ecotorl einc.coml PROJECT NO: 1269 DATE: 1/22/2018 IDPAWN BY: AA ICHECKED BY: DIW
SHEET:
1of11

STATION
ELEVATION
0+00
39.96
0+25
37.7
0+39
36.87
0+42
36.4
0+44
36.18
0+44.5
36.19
0+46
36.68
0+48
35.52
0+50
35.81
0+52
35.81
0+55
36.31
0+59
36.65
0+75
38.09
1+00
40.04
LEGEND
42
40
rn 38
N
v
0
=$ 36
34
32
Monitoring XS 2 (Riffle) - REACH 3 STA 2+41
0 - 0 0 0 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
AS -BUILT GRADE
YEAR 1 MONITORING GRADE
YEAR 2 MONITORING GRADE
BANKFULL ELEVATION
FLOODPRONE ELEVATION
N ote:
Cross section displays survey error.
Channel remains stable and functioning.
ecotone
ecological restoration
Distance From Stream Centerline
Scale: 1" = 20'
Vertical Exaggeration:5x
STREAM TYPE I C5/6
SUMMARY DATA (FT)
BANKFULL ELEVATION:
36.56
BANKFULL CROSS SECTIONAL AREA:
7.07
BANKFULL WIDTH:
16.33
FLOOD PRONE AREA ELEVATION:
37.6
FLOOD PRONE WIDTH:
42.8
MAX DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
1.04
MEAN DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.43
W/D RATIO:
37.73
ENTRENCHMENT RATIO:
2.25
BANK HEIGHT RATIO:
1
HUDSON STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 2 MONITORING XS 2
PROJECT # 95361
BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
2120 High Point Road • Forest Hill, Maryland 21050
[phone] -Fax [phone]•www.ecotoneinc.com PROJECT NO: 1269 DATE: 1/22/2018 DRAWN BY: AA ICHECKED BY: DIS
SHEET:
2 of 11

STATION
ELEVATION
0+00
37.28
0+20
36.04
0+44
34.68
0+46
34.50
0+47
34.45
0+48
34.23
0+50
33.96
0+52
34.10
0+54
34.45
0+70
35.67
1+00
37.97
LEGEND
AS -BUILT GRADE
YEAR 1 MONITORING GRADE
YEAR 2 MONITORING GRADE
BANKFULL ELEVATION
FLOODPRONE ELEVATION
Note:
Minor incision occurred in Year 1, as anticipated in a small grassy
system. Year 2 shows improvement as the channel re -adjusts.
ecotone
a �
ecological restoration
Monitoring XS 3 (Riffle) - REACH 4 STA 0+24
40
38
rn 36
(D
v
rt
0
=) 34
32
30
Distance From Stream Centerline
Scale: 1" = 20'
Vertical Exaggeration:5x
STREAM TYPE I C5/6
SUMMARY DATA (FT)
BANKFULL ELEVATION:
34.58
BANKFULL CROSS SECTIONAL AREA:
3.17
BANKFULL WIDTH:
10.59
FLOOD PRONE AREA ELEVATION:
35.18
FLOOD PRONE WIDTH:
29.01
MAX DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.62
MEAN DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.30
W/D RATIO:
35.39
ENTRENCHMENT RATIO:
5.47
BANK HEIGHT RATIO:
1
HUDSON STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 2 MONITORING XS 3
PROJECT # 95361
BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
2120 High Point Road • Forest Hill, Maryland 21050
[phone] -Fax [phone]•www.ecotoneinc.com PROJECT NO: 1269 1 DATE: 1/22/2018 1 DRAWN BY: AA ICHECKED BY: DIS
SHEET:
3 of 11

STATION
ELEVATION
0+00
35.73
0+20
34.20
0+25
33.73
0+27
33.69
0+29
33.60
0+30
33.33
0+32
33.36
0+33
32.90
0+35
33.53
0+37
33.83
0+40
33.90
0+60
34.82
0+84
36.83
LEGEND
AS -BUILT GRADE
YEAR 1 MONITORING GRADE
YEAR 2 MONITORING GRADE
BANKFULL ELEVATION
FLOODPRONE ELEVATION
40
38
m 36
CD
v
r_t
O
73 34
32
30
Monitoring XS 4 (Pool) - REACH 4 STA 2+69
0 0 0 00 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance From Stream Centerline
Scale: 1" = 20'
Vertical Exaggeration:5x
STREAM TYPE I C5/6
SUMMARY DATA (FT)
BANKFULL ELEVATION:
33.75
BANKFULL CROSS SECTIONAL AREA:
3.19
BANKFULL WIDTH:
11.61
FLOOD PRONE AREA ELEVATION:
34.6
FLOOD PRONE WIDTH:
40.4
MAX DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.85
MEAN DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.27
W / D RATIO:
NA
ENTRENCHMENT RATIO:
NA
BANK HEIGHT RATIO:
0.99
ecotone HUDSON STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
a ecological restoration YEAR 2 MONITORING XS 4 SHEET:
PROJECT # 95361
BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA �1 O f 11
2120 High Point Road • Forest Hill, Maryland 21050 `7
[phone] -Fax [phone]•www.ecotoneinc.com PROJECT NO: 1269 DATE: 1/22/2018 DRAWN BY: AA ICHECKED BY: DIS

STATION
ELEVATION
0+00
38.98
0+25
37.61
0+37.5
36.45
0+50
35.61
0+53
34.89
0+55
35.04
0+57
35.44
0+70
36.41
0+75
36.78
1+00
38.80
LEGEND
AS -BUILT GRADE
YEAR 1 MONITORING GRADE
YEAR 2 MONITORING GRADE
BANKFULL ELEVATION
FLOODPRONE ELEVATION
42
40
m 38
34
32
Monitoring XS 5 (Pool) - REACH 2 STA 3+95
HOO 0 0 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance From Stream Centerline
Scale: 1" = 20'
Vertical Exaggeration:5x
STREAM TYPE I C5/6
SUMMARY DATA (FT)
BANKFULL ELEVATION:
35.68
BANKFULL CROSS SECTIONAL AREA:
4.00
BANKFULL WIDTH:
11.04
FLOOD PRONE AREA ELEVATION:
36.38
FLOOD PRONE WIDTH:
33.5
MAX DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.79
MEAN DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.36
W/D RATIO:
NA
ENTRENCHMENT RATIO:
NA
BANK HEIGHT RATIO:
1
ecotone HUDSON STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
ecological restoration YEAR 2 MONITORING XS 5 SHEET:
PROJECT # 95361
BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH C�AA
A
2120 High Point Road • Forest Hill, Maryland 21050 5 of 11
[phone] -Fax [phone]•www.ecotoneinc.com PROJECT N0: 1269 DATE:1/22/2018 DRAWN BYCHECKEDBY: DIS

STATION
ELEVATION
0+00
40.88
0+25
38.67
0+46
36.75
0+47
36.92
0+48
36.57
0+50
36.7
0+52
36.65
0+54
36.7
0+56
36.67
0+58
36.63
0+75
37.8
1+00
40.15
44
42
40
M
v 38
rt
0
36
34
32
Note:
The cross section shows aggradation across the entire
valley. Since aggradation was not noted during field
investigation, we believe this cross section may need to
be resurveyed.
LEGEND
AS -BUILT GRADE
YEAR 1 MONITORING GRADE
YEAR 2 MONITORING GRADE
BANKFULL ELEVATION
FLOODPRONE ELEVATION
Monitoring XS 6 (Riffle) - REACH 2 STA 0+68
Distance From Stream Centerline
Scale: 1" = 20'
STREAM TYPE C5/6 Vertical Exaggeration:5x
SUMMARY DATA (FT)
BANKFULL ELEVATION:
37.54
BANKFULL CROSS SECTIONAL AREA:
5.28
BANKFULL WIDTH:
12.51
FLOOD PRONE AREA ELEVATION:
38.08
FLOOD PRONE WIDTH:
42.3
MAX DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.54
MEAN DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.42
W/D RATIO:
29.64
ENTRENCHMENT RATIO:
2.00
BANK HEIGHT RATIO:
1
a
ecotone HUDSON STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
ecological restoration YEAR 2 MONITORING XS 6
PROJECT # 95361
2120 High Point Road •Forest Hill, Maryland 21050 BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
[phone] -Fax [phone]•www.ecotoneinc.connPROJECT NO: 1269 DATE: 1/22/2018 DRAWN BY: AA ICHECKED BY: DIS
SHEET:
6 of 11

STATION
ELEVATION
0+00
38.31
0+25
37.14
0+28
36.96
0+42
36.64
0+44
36.67
0+45
36.24
0+46
36.14
0+48
35.73
0+50
35.70
0+52
36.28
0+56
36.22
0+70
36.48
0+97
36.97
1+00
37.06
42
40
M
LEGEND
AS -BUILT GRADE
YEAR 1 MONITORING GRADE
YEAR 2 MONITORING GRADE
BANKFULL ELEVATION
— — — — — — — — — — FLOODPRONE ELEVATION
Note:
The pool is deepening as expected.
36
34
Monitoring XS 7 (Pool) - REACH 1 STA 6+47
n n n n n in in 1 n n zn an Cn c.
STREAM TYPE C5/6
Distance From Stream Centerline
Scale: 1" = 20'
Vertical Exaggeration:5x
SUMMARY DATA (FT)
BANKFULL ELEVATION:
36.26
BANKFULL CROSS SECTIONAL AREA:
2.37
BANKFULL WIDTH:
6.99
FLOOD PRONE AREA ELEVATION:
36.82
FLOOD PRONE WIDTH:
49.4
MAX DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.56
MEAN DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.34
W / D RATIO:
NA
ENTRENCHMENT RATIO:
NA
BANK HEIGHT RATIO:
0.99
a
ecotone HUDSON STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
ecological restoration YEAR 2 MONITORING XS 7
PROJECT # 95361
2120 High Point Road • Forest Hill, Maryland 21050 BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
[phone] -Fax [phone]•www.ecotoneinc.com PROJECT NO: 1269 DATE: 1/22/2018 DRAWN BY: AA ICHECKED BY: DIS
SHEET:
7 of 11

STATION
ELEVATION
0+00
38.41
0+25
38.18
0+28
38.13
0+42
38.08
0+44
38.03
0+45
37.89
0+46
37.66
0+48
37.70
0+49.5
37.49
0+51.5
37.70
0+53.9
37.33
0+59
37.77
0+70
38.21
1+97
38.44
1+00
38.52
42
40
m
ru
_rt
38
O
36
34
Monitoring XS 8 (Riffle) - REACH 1 STA 4+43
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
n n n An n In n "n nn rn cn
LEGEND
AS -BUILT GRADE
YEAR 1 MONITORING GRADE
YEAR 2 MONITORING GRADE
BANKFULL ELEVATION
FLOODPRONE ELEVATION
STREAM TYPE I C5/6
Distance From Stream Centerline
Scale: 1" = 20'
Vertical Exaggeration:5x
k
0
SUMMARY DATA (FT)
BANKFULL ELEVATION: 37.9
BANKFULL CROSS SECTIONAL AREA: 4.26
BANKFULL WIDTH: 16.10
FLOOD PRONE AREA ELEVATION: 38.46
FLOOD PRONE WIDTH: 97.7
MAX DEPTH AT BANKFULL: 0.57
MEAN DEPTH AT BANKFULL: 0.26
W/D RATIO: 60.83
ENTRENCHMENT RATIO: 5.36
BANK HEIGHT RATIO: 0.88
a
ecotone HUDSON STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
ecological restoration YEAR 2 MONITORING XS 8
PROJECT # 95361
2120 High Point Road •Forest Hill, Maryland 21050 BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
[phone] -Fax [phone]-www.ecotorl einc.coml PROJECT NO: 1269 DATE: 1/22/2018 IDPAWN BY: AA ICHECKED BY: DIS
SHEET:
8 of 11

STATION
ELEVATION
0+00
39.93
0+25
39.92
0+40
39.41
0+46
39.21
0+47
38.05
0+48
38.96
0+50
38.83
0+52
38.24
0+54
38.76
0+56
39.13
0+58
39.36
0+60
39.20
0+66
39.32
0+75
39.60
1+00
39.92
LEGEND
AS -BUILT GRADE
YEAR 1 MONITORING GRADE
YEAR 2 MONITORING GRADE
BANKFULL ELEVATION
FLOODPRONE ELEVATION
Note:
Reach is functioning. Cross section likely displaying an error
in surveying. Field investigation did not reveal an object in
obstruction causing scour in the pool.
ecotone
ecological restoration
44
42
M
CD
obi 40
rt
0
38
36
Monitoring XS 9 (Pool) - REACH 1 STA 2+73
STREAM TYPE I C5/6
Distance From Stream Centerline
Scale: 1" = 20'
Vertical Exaggeration:5x
SUMMARY DATA (FT)
BANKFULL ELEVATION:
39.00
BANKFULL CROSS SECTIONAL AREA:
2.19
BANKFULL WIDTH:
7.30
FLOOD PRONE AREA ELEVATION:
39.58
FLOOD PRONE WIDTH:
38.7
MAX DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.76
MEAN DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.30
W/D RATIO:
NA
ENTRENCHMENT RATIO:
NA
BANK HEIGHT RATIO:
1.01
-�n
nn
rn c
STREAM TYPE I C5/6
Distance From Stream Centerline
Scale: 1" = 20'
Vertical Exaggeration:5x
SUMMARY DATA (FT)
BANKFULL ELEVATION:
39.00
BANKFULL CROSS SECTIONAL AREA:
2.19
BANKFULL WIDTH:
7.30
FLOOD PRONE AREA ELEVATION:
39.58
FLOOD PRONE WIDTH:
38.7
MAX DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.76
MEAN DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.30
W/D RATIO:
NA
ENTRENCHMENT RATIO:
NA
BANK HEIGHT RATIO:
1.01
HUDSON STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 2 MONITORING XS 9
PROJECT # 95361
BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
2120 High Point Road • Forest Hill, Maryland 21050
[phone] -Fax [phone]•www.ecotoneinc.com PROJECT NO: 1269 DATE: 1/22/2018 DRAWN BY: AA ICHECKED BY: DIS
SHEET:
9 of 11

STATION
ELEVATION
0+00
41.37
0+20
40.70
0+34
40.51
0+42
40.29
0+44
40.01
0+46
39.97
0+48
40.06
0+50
39.82
0+52
40.01
0+54
40.31
0+75
40.68
1+00
41.19
LEGEND
46
44
m 42
38
36
AS -BUILT GRADE
YEAR 1 MONITORING GRADE
YEAR 2 MONITORING GRADE
BANKFULL ELEVATION
FLOODPRONE ELEVATION
ecotone
a �
ecological restoration
Monitoring XS 10 (Riffle) - REACH 1 STA 0+64
0 0 0 0 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance From Stream Centerline
Scale: 1" = 20'
Vertical Exaggeration:5x
STREAM TYPE I C5/6
SUMMARY DATA (FT)
BANKFULL ELEVATION:
40.24
BANKFULL CROSS SECTIONAL AREA:
2.58
BANKFULL WIDTH:
11.19
FLOOD PRONE AREA ELEVATION:
40.7
FLOOD PRONE WIDTH:
53.8
MAX DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.42
MEAN DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.23
W/D RATIO:
48.60
ENTRENCHMENT RATIO:
5.21
BANK HEIGHT RATIO:
1.12
HUDSON STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 2 MONITORING XS 10
PROJECT # 95361
BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
2120 High Point Road • Forest Hill, Maryland 21050
[phone] -Fax [phone]•www.ecotoneinc.com PROJECT NO: 1269 DATE: 1/22/2018 DRAWN BY: AA ICHECKED BY: DIS
SHEET:
10 of 11

STATION
ELEVATION
0+00
35.58
0+08
33.62
0+10.5
33.21
0+14
32.71
0+16
32.71
0+18
32.85
0+20
32.75
0+22
32.77
0+24
32.83
0+26
32.75
0+28
32.72
0+30
33.04
0+32
32.65
0+34
32.63
0+36
32.54
0+38
32.56
0+40
33.06
0+42
33.24
0+44
33.38
0+46
33.50
0+60
39.45
0+75
35.66
LEGEND
AS -BUILT GRADE
YEAR 1 MONITORING GRADE
YEAR 2 MONITORING GRADE
BANKFULL ELEVATION
FLOODPRONE ELEVATION
40
38
rn 36
CD
v
0
:3 34
32
30
Monitoring XS 11 REACH 1 STA 8+14 & Reach 4 (Station 4+28)
0 0 0 10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance From Stream Centerline
Scale: 1" = 20'
Vertical Exaggeration:5x
STREAM TYPE I C5/6
SUMMARY DATA (FT)
BANKFULL ELEVATION:
33.49
BANKFULL CROSS SECTIONAL AREA:
22.54
BANKFULL WIDTH:
36.94
FLOOD PRONE AREA ELEVATION:
34.44
FLOOD PRONE WIDTH:
55.1
MAX DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.95
MEAN DEPTH AT BANKFULL:
0.61
W/D RATIO:
NA
ENTRENCHMENT RATIO:
NA
BANK HEIGHT RATIO:
1
a �
ecotone HUDSON STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
ecological restoration YEAR 2 MONITORING XS 11 SHEET:
PROJECT # 95361
2120 High Point Road • Forest Hill, Maryland 21050 BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 11 i i of i 11
i
[phone] -Fax [phone]•www.ecotoneinc.com PROJECT NO: 1269 DATE: 1/22/2018 DRAWN BY: AA ICHECKED BY: DIS

Table 8: Monitoring Year 2 - Bank Pin Data
Pins arrays consist of three pins located in the middle of stream banks along meander bends
Bank Pin Array #1 @ XS 5 - Reach 2 — Station 2+69
Pin Exposure
Upstream Pin Could not find- minor aggradation
Middle Pin Could not find- minor aggradation
Downstream Pin Could not find- minor aggradation
Bank Pin Array #2 @ XS 4 - Reach 2 — Station 3+95
Pin Exposure
Upstream Pin Could not find- minor aggradation
Middle Pin Could not find- minor aggradation
Downstream Pin Could not find- minor aggradation
Bank Pin Array #1 @ XS 9 - Reach 1— Station 2+73
Pin Exposure
Upstream Pin Could not find- minor aggradation
Middle Pin Could not find- minor aggradation
Downstream Pin Could not find- minor aggradation
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
38

Hudson Stream Restoration Project - Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
39
Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number Hudson/ DMS:95361 - Segment/Reach: Reach 1
Parameter Gauge2
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL UL Eq. Min
Mean
Med Max SDS
in Min
Mean Med Max SDS n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean Med Max SDS
in
Bankfull Width (ft)
3.36
3.83 6.02
19.74
21.97 24.2
9.02
11.5
16.2
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
6.47
6.91 10.5
44
64.5 85
18.06
26.74
34.89
57
83.33
2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.45
0.52 0.6
0.7
0.75 0.82
0.42
0.22
0.26
2
1 Bankfull Max Depth ft
0.56
0.87 1.07
0.85
1.02 1.18
0.44
0.53
0.61
0.4
0.51
2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
1.99
2 2.68
16.09
16.49 16.89
3.8
2.58
4.26
2
Width/Depth Ratio
5.64
T 7.37 13.52
24.22
29.27 34.67
21.4
52.27
62.31
2
Entrenchment Ratio
1 1.74
1.8 1.93
2
2.94 3.87
2
2.94
3.87
4.96
5.14
2
Bank Hei ht Ratio
I I 1
1
2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
WA*
12
46.5 81
4.93
19.09
33.25
Riffle Slope (fUft)
WA*
0.004
0.011 0.017
0.006
0.016
0.025
Pool Length (ft)
WA*
21
30.5 40
4.72
8.41
14.98
Pool Max depth (ft)
WA*
1.4
1.65 1.9
0.72
0.93
1.15
Pool Spacing (ft)
WA*
40
59 78
16.42
26.95
35.63
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
WA*
27
49 76
11.08
20.11
31.19
Radius of Curvature (ft)
WA*
90
92 95
36.94
37.76
38.99
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
N/A*
4.10
4.19
4.32
Meander Wavelength (ft)
WA*
12.43
15.07 18.25
112.1
135.9
164.6
Meander Width Ratio
Transport parameters
WA*
1.23
2.23
3.46
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/f2
0.26
0.18
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/mz
0.56
0.14
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
G5 -G6
C5-C6
C5-C6
C5/6
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
5.6
Valley length (ft)
840
264
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
846
264
833
850
Sinuosity (ft)
1.01
1
1.04
1.04
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.007
0.004
0.007
BE slope (ft/ft)
0.006
'Bankfull Floodplain Area acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Hudson Stream Restoration Project - Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
39

Hudson Stream Restoration Project - Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
40
Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number Hudson/ DMS:95361 - Segment/Reach: Reach 2
Parameter Gauge2
Regional Curve
Pre-Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL UL Eq. Min
Mean
Med Max SDS
n Min
Mean Med Max SDS n
Min
Med
Max
Min Mean Med Max SDS
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.97
6.87 7.2
19.74
21.97 24.2
14.83
11.78
1
Floodprone Width (ft)
10.03
12.03 13.47
44
64.5 85
29.71
43.55
57.39
28.2
1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.91
0.92 0.94
0.7
0.75 0.82
0.67
0.45
1
1 Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.38
1.42 1.54
0.85
1.02 1.18
0.7
0.84
0.98
0.86
1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
5.59
6.32 6.58
16.09
16.49 16.89
10
5.28
1
Width/Depth Ratio
6.38
7.47 7.88
24.22
29.27 34.67
22
26.18
1
Entrenchment Ratio
1 1.67
1.68 1.96
2
2.94 3.87
2.94
2.39
1
Bank Height Ratio
H�j
1
1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
WA*
12
46.5 81
8.1
31.39
54.68
Riffle Slope (fUft)
WA*
0.004
0.011 0.017
0.003
0.008
0.012
Pool Length (ft)
WA*
21
30.5 40
14.18
20.59
27
Pool Max depth (ft)
WA*
1.4
1.65 1.9
1.16
1.48
1.84
Pool Spacing (ft)
WA*
40
59 78
27
44.33
58.61
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
WA*
27
49 76
18.23
33.08
51.31
Radius of Curvature (ft)
WA*
90
92 95
60.76
62.11
64.14
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
N/A*
4.10
4.19
4.32
Meander Wavelength (ft)
WA*
12.43
15.07 18.25
184.3
223.5
270.7
Meander Width Ratio
Transport parameters
WA*
1.23
2.23
3.46
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/f2
0.42
0.11
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W' 11'
1.25
0.18
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
G5-G6
C5-C6
C5-C6
C 5/6
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley length (ft)
17.2
486
264
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
516
264
532
541
Sinuosity (ft)
1.06
1
1.05
1.05
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.003
0.004
0.003
BE slope (ft/ft)
0.0035
'Bankfull Floodplain Area acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Hudson Stream Restoration Project - Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
40

Hudson Stream Restoration Project - Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
41
Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Pro ect Name/Number Hudson/ DMS:95361 - Segment/Reach: Reach 3
Parameter Gauge'
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL UL Eq. Nin
Mean
Med Max SDS
n Min
Mean Med Max SDS n
Min
Med
Max
Min Mean Med Max SDS
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
3.55
4.03 5.05
19.74
21.97 24.2
10
12.5
1
Floodprone Width (ft)
5.97
6.44 9.13
44
64.5 85
20.03
29.36
38.69
32.9
1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.55
0.79 0.84
0.7
0.75 0.82
0.5
0.57
1
1 Bankfull Max Depth ft
0.88
1.15 1.44
0.85
1.02 1.18
0.52
0.63
0.72
0.85
1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)2
1.94
3.17 4.26
16.09
16.49 16.89
5
7.07
1
Width/Depth Ratio
5.12
5.99 6.5
24.22
29.27 34.67
20
21.95
1
Entrenchment Ratio
1.6
I
1.68 1.8
2
2.94 3.87
2
1
2.94
3.87
2.63
1
� Bank Hei ht Ratio
I I I
I
1
1
Profile
N
M =
Riffle Length (ft)
WA*
12
46.5 81
5.46
21.17
36.87
Riffle Slope (fUft)
WA*
0.004
0.011 0.017
0.005
0.014
0.021
Pool Length (ft)
WA*
21
30.5 40
9.56
13.88
18.21
Pool Max depth (ft)
WA*
1.4
1.65 1.9
0.86
1.1
1.36
Pool Spacing (ft)
WA*
40
59 78
18.21
29.89
39.51
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
WA*
27
49 76
12.29
22.3
24.59
Radius of Curvature (ft)
WA*
90
92 95
40.96
41.88
43.24
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
N/A*
4.10
4.19
4.32
Meander Wavelength (ft)
WA*
12.43
15.07 18.25
124.3
150.7
182.5
Meander Width Ratio
Transport parameters
WA*
1.23
2.23
3.46
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/f2
0.37
0.14
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W'
1.02
0.18
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
G5 -G6
C5-C6
C5-C6
C 5/6
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley length (ft)
8
442
264
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
460
264
445
446
Sinuosity (ft)
1.04
1
1.01
1.08
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.007
0.004
0.007
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.005
'Bankfull Floodplain Area acres
'% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Hudson Stream Restoration Project - Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
41

Hudson Stream Restoration Project - Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
42
Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number Hudson/ DMS:95361 - Segment/Reach: Reach 4
Parameter Gauge2
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL UL Eq. Min
Mean Med Max SDS
in Min
Mean Med Max SDS in
Min
Med
Max
Min Mean Med Max SDS n
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.34
7.48 8.84
19.74
21.97 24.2
21.82
9.9 1
Floodprone Width (ft)
12.21
13.83 16.28
44
64.5 85
43.69
64.05
84.41
31.36 1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.97
1 1.05
0.7
0.75 0.82
0.78
0.32 1
1 Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.47
1.51 1.82
0.85
1.02 1.18
0.81
0.98
1.13
0.74 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)2
7.49
7.69 8.58
16.09
16.49 16.89
17
3.17 1
Width/Depth Ratio
7.01
7.47 9.11
24.22
29.27 34.67
28
30.9 1
Entrenchment Ratio
1.63
1.84 1.88
2
2.94 3.87
2
2.94
3.87
3.17 1
Bank Height Ratio
1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
WA*
12
46.5 81
46.18
80.44
Riffle Slope (fUft)
WA*
0.004
0.011 0.017
0.016
0.025
Pool Length (ft)
WA*
21
30.5 40
30.29
39.72
Pool Max depth (ft)
WA*
1.4
1.65 1.9
126.8
1.71
2.12
Pool Spacing (ft)
WA*
40
59 78
65.21
86.21
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
WA*
27
49 75
48.66
75.47
Radius of Curvature (ft)
WA*
90
92 95
89.37
91.36
94.34
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
WA*
4.096
4.188
4.324
Meander Wavelength (ft)
WA*
12.43
15.07 18.25
271.1
328.7
398.2
Meander Width Ratio
Transport parameters
WA*
1.23
2.23
3.46
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/f2
0.48
0.16
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) %
1.01
0.22
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
G5 -G6
C5-C6
C5-C6
C 5/6
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley length (ft)
26.2
434
EAM
264
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
503
264
437
447
Sinuosity (ft)
1.16
1
1.01
1.01
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.003
0.004
0.003
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.0035
'Bankfull Floodplain Area acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Hudson Stream Restoration Project - Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
42

Table 11a. Monitoring Data -Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters -Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number Hudson/ DMS:95361 Segment/Reach: Reach 1-4 2200 feet
Cross Section 1 (Pool - Reach 3) Cross Section 2 (Riffle - Reach 3)
Cross Section 3 (Riffle - Reach 4)
Cross Section 4 (Pool - Reach 4)
Cross Section 5 (Pool - Reach 2)
Base MY1 MY2 MY3
MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline cross-sectional area'
Record elevation (datum) used 4.00 4.00 4.00
7.07 7.07 7.07
3.17 3.17 3.17
3.19 3.19 3.19
4.00 4.00 4.00
Bankful Elevation (1t) 37.57 37.72 38.33
36.40 36.36 36.56
34.50 34.34 34.58
33.60 33.69 33.75
35.46 35.59 35.68
Bankfull Width (it) 6.30 13.97 12.37
12.50 13.83 16.33
9.90 5.90 10.59
9.79 11.95 11.61
7.55 10.69 11.04
Floodprone Width (1t) 21.50 29.60 27.40
32.90 36.80 42.80
31.36 47.80 29.01
23.40 36.50 40.40
32.50 24.30 33.50
Bankfull Mean Depth (it) 0.64 0.29 0.32
0.57 0.51 0.43
0.32 0.54 0.30
0.33 0.27 0.27
0.53 0.37 0.36
Bankfull Max Depth (1t) 1.24 0.67 0.79
0.85 0.92 1.04
0.74 1.46 0.62
0.60 0.77 0.85
0.90 0.82 0.79
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area fe 4.00 4.00 4.00
7.07 7.07 7.07
3.17 3.17 3.17
3.19 3.19 3.19
4.00 4.00 4.00
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio N/A N/A N/A
21.95 27.04 37.73
30.90 10.99 35.39
N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio N/A N/A N/A
2.63 2.66 2.25
3.17 8.10 5.47
N/A N/A N/A
N/A I N/A N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1
1.00
1.00 1.00 0.99
1.00 1.00 1.00
Cross Sectional Area between end Pins if
d50 (mm
Cross Section 6 (Riffle -Reach 2) Cross Section 7 (Pool - Reach 1)
Cross Section 8 (Riffle - Reach 1)
Cross Section 9 (Pool - Reach 1)
Cross Section 10 (Riffle - Reach 1)
Base MY1 MY2 MY3
MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY, Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS
MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 .-MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Based on fixed baseline cross-sectional area'
Record elevation (datum) used 5.28
2.37 2.37 2.37
4.26 4.26 4.26
2.19
2.58 2.58 2.58
Bankful Elevation (1t) 36.53 37.00 37.54
36.56 36.55 36.26
37.91 37.88 37.90
39.00 39.00 39.00
40.26 40.20 40.24
Bankfull Width (1t) 11.78 12.51 12.51
7.00 6.66 6.99
16.20 18.66 16.10
8.00 8.53 7.30
11.50 10.80 11.19
Floodprone Width (1t) 28.20 31.30 42.30
69.00 71.40 49.40
83.33 73.10 97.70
37.37 49.60 38.70
57.00 41.30 53.80
Bankfull Mean Depth (it) 0.45 0.42 0.42
0.33 0.36 0.34
0.26 0.23 0.26
0.27 0.26 0.30
0.22 0.24 0.23
Bankfull Max Depth (1t) 0.86 0.44 0.54
0.65 0.67 0.56
0.51 0.47 0.57
0.59 0.68 0.76
0.40 0.43 0.42
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fe) 5.28 5.28 5.28
2.37 2.37 1 2.37 1
4.26 4.26 4.26 1
1 2.19 2.19 2.19 1
2.58 1 2.58 2.58
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 26.18 29.65 29.64
N/A N/A N/A 1
162.31 81.72 60.83 1
N/A I N/A N/A 1
52.27 45.21 48.60
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 2.39 2.00 2.00
N/A N/A N/A
5.14 4.62 5.36
N/A N/A N/A
4.96 5.40 5.21
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.17 0.99
1.00 0.76 0.88
1.00 1.00 1.01
1.00 1.19 1.12
Cross Sectional Area between end ins(if,
d50 (mm)
Cross Section 11 (Confluence
-Reach 1)
Base MY1 MY2 MY3
MY4 MYS MY+
Based on fixed baseline cross-sectional area'
Record elevation (datum) used 22.54 22.54 22.54
Bankful Elevation (1t) 33.42 33.43 33.49
Bankfull Width (1t) 32.00 32.18 36.94
Floodprone Width (it) 50.34 59.50 55.10
Bankfull Mean Depth (1t) 0.70 0.70 0.61
Bankfull Max Depth (1t) 0.91 1.52 0.95
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (U) 22.54 22.54 22.54
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio N/A N/A N/A
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio N/A N/A N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00
Cross Sectional Area between end pins R2
d50 (mm)
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline cross-section datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input thecross section used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the
datum used for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If lhiscannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states:"it is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent overthe monitoring history, which may influence calculated values. Additional data from a prior
performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."
Hudson Stream Restoration Project - Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
43

2 = Bankfull for XS
MonitoringExhibit Table 11 b. Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Hudson/ DMS:95361) Segment/Reach: Reach 1
O
ONON00M©EMONONOWON©
..
MOON®MONONONMON MEN MONONONMMMONMON
0ENEENIMM■MBEENIMENEINEENNEENNEEN
NOMMEN MMMMMMENMMMMM
significant shifts from baseline
IME:,IMIM:,MEN
MEN
,.MENMEMEN,.
MEN MEN
2 = Bankfull for XS
Shadedcells Indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 =The
distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; SilUClay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, lisp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
44
..
Shadedcells Indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 =The
distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; SilUClay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, lisp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
44

2 - Banklrll in, XS 5
Shaded cells Indicate that these will typically not be tilled In.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2= Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Sift/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only it the n exceeds 3
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
45
Exhibit Table I 1b. Monitoring Data Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Hudson/ DMS:95361) Segment/Reach: Reach 2
Bankfull Mean Depth (it)
'Bankfull Max Depth (it)
==Emmmommmmmommmmmommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Wicith/Depth Ratio
MMMMM = =====I MMMMMM
Radius of Curvature (it) MMMMMM
MMMMMMMMMMMMmm
Meander Wavelength (it) MMMMMMMMMMMM��M
= MMMMM
MM
signifiwarnshinIsfambas.1m.��������
Additional Reach Parameters
2 - Banklrll in, XS 5
Shaded cells Indicate that these will typically not be tilled In.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2= Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Sift/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only it the n exceeds 3
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
45

ni ryp.cany not ee mise .n.
I
=The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 =Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Slit/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip= max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
46
MonitoringExhibit Table 11 b. .. Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Hudson/ DMS:95361) Segment/Reach: Reach 3
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
significant shifts from baseline
Additional Reach Parameters
AIM
Rosgen Classification
t:
-
t tt
t tt
t tt
ni ryp.cany not ee mise .n.
I
=The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 =Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Slit/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip= max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
46

2 = Ban Mull for XS 6 recalculated
w,,, ,p,,a,, nor oe nnso in.
1 =The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
47
MonitoringExhibit Table 11b. .. Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Hudson/ DMS:95361) Segment/Reach: Reach 4
Floodprone Width (it)
MEW==ommmmmo
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
Pool Mau� depth (it)
Pool Spacing (it)
Channel Beftwidth (it)
significant shifts from baseline
Additional Reach Parameters
Water SurfaceSfope�er�
2 = Ban Mull for XS 6 recalculated
w,,, ,p,,a,, nor oe nnso in.
1 =The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
47

APPENDIX E: HYDROLOGIC DATA
Table 9: Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 12: Verification of Baseflow
Figure 2: Monthly Rainfall Data with Percentiles
Figures 3-12: Stream Surface Water Hydrology (Well 1-10)
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
48

Table 9: Verification of Bankfull Events
Date of
Well (Reach)
Greaterthan
30 Consecutive Days
Minimum Flow
Requirement Met?
Observation
Date of Occurance
Method
Qbkf Stage?
Notes
2 (Reach 3)
9/29/2016-10/17/2016, 10/21-10/24, 7/16-7/17,
Y
On-site data logger
3 (Reach 4)
11/17/17
8/11, 8/13-8/14, 9/6- 9/8/2017
On -Site data logger
y
Reach 1(Well 5, 6)
Y
9/29/2016-10/16/2016, 10/25, 12/18-12/28,
5 (Reach 1)
Various
Y
On-site data logger
12/30-1/3, 1/5-1/19, 1/30-1/31, 2/1-2/6, 2/20-
Various
Y
On-site data logger
11/17/17
Various
On -Site data logger
y
Reach 2 (Well 7)
Various
2/21, 3/3-3/6, 3/19-3/27, 3/29-3/30, 4/1-4/3,
On-site data logger
9 (Reach 5)
Various
Y
4/13, 4/18-4/20, 4/28-4/30, 5/30/2017,
10 (Reach 5)
Various
Y
11/17/17
9/29/2016-11/3/2017
On -Site data logger
y
Reach 3 ( Well 1, 2)
9/29/2016-10/2, 10/6-10/12, 10/14-10/16, 10/25-
10/29, 11/1-11/2, 11/5-11/8, 11/12, 12/4-12/5,
12/9-12/28, 12/30-1/3, 1/6-1/17, 2/2-2/6, 2/10-
11/17/17
2/11, 2/21, 3/2-3/31, 4/2-4/3, 4/9-4/20, 4/24-
On -Site data logger
y
Reach 4(Well 3)
4/26, 4/29-4/30, 5/5, 5/25, 5/30, 6/21, 6/24-6/25,
7/5, 7/18, 8/13-8/14, 9/9-9/11/2017
10/7-10/9, 12/19-12/20, 1/2, 1/7-1/10, 1/13-
11/17/17
1/14, 3/5, 3/23-3/24, 4/24-4/25, 5/5, 5/23, 5/25,
On -Site data logger
y
Reach 1&4Confluence (Well 4)
6/24, 9/6/2017
Hudson Stream Restoration Project - Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
49
Table 12: Verification of Baseflow
Well (Reach)
Dates of Occurrence
30 Consecutive Days
Minimum Flow
Requirement Met?
Notes
1 (Reach 3)
Various
Y
On-site data logger
2 (Reach 3)
Various
Y
On-site data logger
3 (Reach 4)
Various
Y
On-site data logger
4 (Confluence R1&4)
Various
Y
On-site data logger
5 (Reach 1)
Various
Y
On-site data logger
6 (Reach 1)
Various
Y
On-site data logger
7 (Reach 2)
Various
Y
On-site data logger
8 (Reach 5)
Various
Y
On-site data logger
9 (Reach 5)
Various
Y
On-site data logger
10 (Reach 5)
Various
Y
On-site data logger
Hudson Stream Restoration Project - Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
49

10
9
9
7
5 6
0
in 5 _
2n
I
a 4 —
3
2
1
0 '
Nov 16'
Figure 2: Monthly Rainfall Data
Dec 17' Jan 17' Feb 17' Mar 17' Apr 17' May 17' Jun 17' Jul 17' Aug 17' Sept 17' Oct 17'
Date
Rainfall (in) —3Opercentile —7Opercentile
Rainfall Data collected from Washington WWTP in Beaufort County, NC. Data obtained from USDA-NRCSAgricultural Applied Climate
Information System. Percentiles calculated from 2017-1997 data.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
50

Figure 3
39.5
38.5
0 37.5
m 36.5
W
35.5
ON
Stream Surface Water Hydrology Monitoring - MY 2
Monitoring Well 1- Reach 3
Figure 4
38.0
37.5
37.0
36.5
c
36.0
m
v 35.5
W
35.0
34.0
�D �D tD cD tD [0 �D �D [0 cD tD �D �D [0 cD tD [0 f� M1 M1 M1 M1 f� M1 M1 M1 M1 f� M1 M1 M1 M1 M1 f� M1 M1 M1 f� f� M1 M1 M1 M1 f� M1 M1 M1 M1 M1 M1 M1 M1 M1 f� n M1 M1 M1 M1 f� M1 M1 M1 M1 M1 M1 h M1 M1
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N O_7 N 0_0 ro Q_] O ] -1 N N -1 � N 0_0 17 0_0 O p N n rn Q_r
] �n _-I V�1 _-I M1 ro O_1 O uD N D_0 N m O �+_n -i l_O N 0_0 ro Q_] �+_']_-I
O N� e_ -I epi ��� ---- N ---- M ---� V ��� N N N CO W CP ����
Q1 r- O O O O r ri r ei r r ri N N N N r ri r1 ri N N N N rYl rT7 tT1 rt1 Z Ln 'l1 un 'l1 10 ID tD 10 n r, r, r, CO 00 CO DO 0) Ot a) C)
rl ri rl .--I .--I rl ri rl ri rl rl
Date
—Water Elevation Banktull Datum Thalweg Elevation
Stream Surface Water Hydrology Monitoring - MY 2
Monitoring Well 2 - Reach 3
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
O l_D N h N m rn (n N N 0�0 O N 1-1 N In Q_] O IDD_- r- N m rn Q_) N O l�0 N n rn (n [r�i Ln 1_ l_0 �- n In 0_0 V O Ln _- n M W
N N N rl N N -i rl N M -i -i N N r1 r -I N — r -I N N M -1 rl N N -i N N r1 ri N rn -1 N N N N ri rl N 10 r1 N N
_1 0 0 0 0 7 r1 N N N r1-1rl N N N N -i -i -i 1-i N N N N N m mDm m m ro 7 a 7 7 N Ln 7 _'1 L+_l UD ko ID LDM1 n n n n CO CO 0_0 W co T 6] O�7 Q_1 O�7 Q_] 0 0 0
rl ri rl ri rl ri rl ri rl ri rl c- �--I a ri
Date
—Water Elevation — Bankfull Datum —Thalweg Elevation
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
51

Figure 5
38.0
37.0
—�— 36.0
c
35.0
�o
ai 34.0
W
33.0
32.0
Figure 6
35.0
34.5
r. 34.0
w
c
33.5
��- 33.0
m
� 32.5
W 32.0
31.5
31.0
Stream Surface Water Hydrology Monitoring - MY 2
Monitoring Well 3 - Reach 4
LD cD [D [D [D LD [D [D lO [D LD [D [D [D n n n n n n n n r n n n n n n n n r n n n n n n n n r n n n n n n n n n n n n n n r-
1-4 �A �A �A 1-4
O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N a, �D m O V1 N M �D V1 rl m Ln �--� n �--i m u"1 4 m Ln �--� m i4 m V1 N m �n �--� m un 4 m r -I n ri w
1 0 1 1 1 r11 X1-1 1 1 1 N 1 c1 -I X1-1 1 1 1 N 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 N 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 C10 010 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 0 0 1 1
Q7 rl O O O '1 rl ri ri r -i rl N N N �--� �--I �--� N N N M M m N u'] u'1 �D LD rD n n n m m m Q7 Q7 Q7 rl r --I O O O
r I r I rI r I rI r I r -i ri ri ri ri ri
Date
Water Elevation Bankfull Datum — Thalweg Elevation
Stream Surface Water Hydrology Monitoring - MY 2
Monitoring Well 4 - Confluence Reaches 1&4
�D '.D 'D 'D 'D 'D o 'D 'o '0 'D 'D 'D �z n n r- r r r- rr r rr n r- r r n n r r r r- rr r r- rn n r- rr r n r- r r r- r- r r r n r r r r- r r- r- r -
O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
011 t1p C_n O t_D N T L_D f+_"i Q_1 c_D [_�1 O n N 611 [1D M O N N 011 [1D N .1-I 01G u_'] •1i n 4F .1-I 010 N .1-I 010 Lr1] ;1 010 . .1-I m1 N N m1 ul'] •1i W u1'� ._-I 0_O ._-I 11+ .1-I 010 � ] 1, W
1 0 1 11 1 N 1 11 �D 1 1 1 n 1 1 1 m m 111 61 1 1 1 0 0 11 1
O Ln u] Ln ID LD r r r m 00 Co m m Q1 a -I rl O O O
Date
Water Elevation Bankfull Datum Thalweg Elevation
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
52

Figure 7
39.5
39
c 38
0
y 37.5
m
ud 37
36.5
36
Stream Surface Water Hydrology Monitoring - MY 2
Monitoring Well 5 - Reach 1
'D 'D cD LD cD 'D 'D 'D 'D LD 'D LD cD cD n In In In rn r f+ f+ fn n n rn In n r rn rn rn n n r- In In r In In rn rn I- rn hn In fr fr rn rn rn n r- r- In In rn r�
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
m l_O M C_ N0_0 N 1 N 0_0 _ r r_ r fl_l O LO M N 0_0 _n N M _ r M_ r r_ r P_� O l_O M O M O LD N G_LnN m _ M r_ w
N N M M Cq � N N — — — — 1� --- m m ---rJ
N N N 1 rn rn r �'f Ln Ln tG tG UD UD I� r r 00 00 00 M M
a -I rl r -I rl ri a -I a -I a -I rl a --I a -I a -I
Figure 8
42.0
41.5
41.0
Y
�. 40.5
p 40.0
39.5
ami 39.0
"' 38.5
38.0
37.5
Date
Water Elevation Bankfull Datum Thalweg Elevation
Stream Surface Water Hydrology Monitoring - MY 2
Monitoring Well 6 - Reach 1
uD �D cD cD cD uD �D LD LD LD rn rn r. r. r. r- n n n rn n n n rn rn rn rn n rn n n n r- r- n n n n rn rn rn n r.- rn rn n rn rn r.- n n n n n r -
O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
m M_ O N m Y O_ L_0 f� O r N C_1 M M O ff/] N m M h r_i w M n V_ CO h r_ M N r__i W im/] N c_0 N _i W N r_i w _ r 14 c_0 m r_
��� f'!7rj
lD lD 1z GO m O ���
Q] �--� O O O �--� r1 ri a -I a -I r1 N N N �--� �--� �--� N N N rn rn rn '1] 'J] Ln lD uD uD f.- n n cc c0 co Q1 Q1 M I �--I O O O
rl ri rl ri a -I a -I rl ri rl ri rl .--I
Date
WaterElevation Bankfull Datum Thalweg Elevation
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
53

Figure 9
38.0
37.5
_ 37.0
$ 36.5
c
36.0
m
a 35.5
W
35.0
34.5
34.0
Stream Surface Water Hydrology Monitoring - MY 2
Monitoring Well 7 - Reach 2
�n �n �o �o o �n �n ca �n �o �n o �o �o n r r� r• n r r� n n r � n n r� n n n r• r n r� r• r r � n n r� n n n � r n n n r n n n n n � r r�
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N = N N N N N = N = N N N N N N N N = N = N N = N = N = N N = N
cD
['!1 O N N .� N .--I -I OO u_'] rl {� .--I OO OO u_'] a -I W � .--I CO �1 N OO N rl 00 u_'] . W -I OO � .-I f� � .--I a --I 4;a-
Q)14N N N N N N M In 117 V V ul '-+] u] tD 10 10 r r f� 00 CO CO Qt Qs Q] rl
Figure 10
34.5
34.0
33.5
33.0
0 32.5
32.0
m 31.5
W 31.0
30.5
30.0
Date
-Water Elevation Bankfull Datum Thalweg Elevation
Stream Surface Water Hydrology Monitoring - MY 2
Monitoring Well S - Reach 5
ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N .4 N N N N N N N N
Q_i c_D M O l_D N Q_i � f_'i6_1 c_D M O M1 N6_1 c_D [_!1 O_/] N Q_i � �._-I O_O N a_ -I �� ._-I N_ �/_]._-I 0_O u_'] N W� ._-I 0_O N N 0_Ou_'] N Wa ._-I 0_O �._I r � ._-I 0_O �+_'1 �_-I W
�_� .--I .-I �� N �� M �� a ��� N �� la O -- --
N N N .-I .-I .-I N N N rfl IY1 r!1 � 7 � u] �f] �f] cD
Date
Water Elevation Streambed Surface Elevation
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
54

Figure 11'
Stream Surface Water Hydrology Monitoring - MY 2
Monitoring Well 9 - Reach 5
35.0
34.0
$ 33.0
0 32.0
0 31.0
i 30.0
m
W 29.0
28.0
27.0
t0 LO cD cD tD LO �D cD cD tD cp cD cD tD M1 M1 r r r r r r r r r r I� M1 r r I� n r r r I� r M1 r r n r r r r r M1 r n n r r I� n r r M1 M1 M1
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O p p O O O p O O O p O O O O p O O O p O O O p p O O O p O O O p p O O O p O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
O � �� �--I rl �_� N ��� .--I rl �� N --- T ---
� ry O O O ry ry .-I .-I .--I ry N N N ry ry ry
Figure 12
34.0
33.0
32.0
31.0
0 30.0
29.0
y 28.0
W 27.0
26.0
25.0
Date
Water Elevation — Streambed Surface Elevation
Stream Surface Water Hydrology Monitoring - MY 2
Monitoring Well 10 - Reach 5
� �D p p p �D �D cD cD cD LD O O O M1 M1 r r r M1 r r r r r r r M1 r r r r M1 r M1 M1 M1 M1 r r r M1 r r r r M1 r r r r r r r r r M1 M1 M1
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O p O O O O p p O O O O p O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N = N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
01 "i [Yi O 'ID '2 Ii ['/iO f� N 6] lO['n O N N 61 Ii N r: W if] rl n .: W u1 .--I W u_'] rl W .--I O_O u1 N O_O ill e-1 OO Z N m :Z?� .--I 1 ;:: W : ] ♦:: OO
N a -I N N ___ N _ _ N __ m m 65 =
p� ry O O O ry ry .—I .—I .—I ry N N N ry ry ry N N N T f/1 T � � �%] u'1 uj �D lD �D r r r OO OO _65 -
Date Date
—Water Elevation Streambed Surface Elevation
' Grading occurred in November 2017 that changed streambed surface elevation on Reach 5.
Hudson Stream Restoration Project — Year 2 Monitoring ReportDRAFT
December 2017 DMS Project # 95361
55